Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

N. v. SWITZERLANDJOINT DISSENTING OPINION of MM. BUSUTTIL, GÖZÜBÜYÜK, WEITZEL,

Doc ref:ECHR ID:

Document date: May 14, 1993

  • Inbound citations: 0
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 0

N. v. SWITZERLANDJOINT DISSENTING OPINION of MM. BUSUTTIL, GÖZÜBÜYÜK, WEITZEL,

Doc ref:ECHR ID:

Document date: May 14, 1993

Cited paragraphs only

     JOINT DISSENTING OPINION of MM. BUSUTTIL, GÖZÜBÜYÜK, WEITZEL,

            SCHERMERS, DANELIUS, Mrs. THUNE and Mr. ROZAKIS

      We regret that we disagree with the majority in respect of the

complaint under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention of the imposition

of advance court costs on the applicant.

      While we consider that Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention is

applicable to these proceedings (see above, para. 84), we have reached

a different conclusion as to the compliance with this provision.

      It is true that in the present case the Federal Court informed

the applicant on 14 December 1989 of the lack of prospects of success

of his action (see above, paras. 41 and 95).  However, the right under

Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention of access to a court includes the

right to "determination" by that court of the applicant's claims within

the meaning of this provision.  The decision by which the Federal Court

informed the applicant on 14 December 1989 of the lack of prospects of

success of his action cannot be regarded as the "determination" of the

applicant's claims.

      In this respect we further note that the Federal Court was not

acting as an appeal or constitutional court, but as the first and only

court called upon to decide the applicant's claims.

      In our opinion, the amount requested from the applicant, i.e.

6,500 SFr, was for an indigent person prohibitively high.  It

effectively barred the applicant's access to the sole court competent

to deal with his claims.  The imposition of the costs thus restricted

his access to court to such an extent that it impaired the very essence

of his right under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

      In our view, therefore, there has been a violation of

Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention in respect of the imposition of

advance court costs.

                              APPENDIX I

                      HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Date                             Item

_________________________________________________________________

1) 23 April 1987            Introduction of Application No. 15252/89

2) 25 July 1989             Introduction of Application No. 15628/89

3) 18 May 1989              Introduction of Application No. 15629/89

4) 18 May 1989              Introduction of Application No. 15630/89

5) 3 October 1989           Introduction of Application No. 15857/89

6) 10 September 1990        Introduction of Application No. 17384/90

1) 20 July 1989             Registration of Application No. 15252/89

2) 4 October 1989           Registration of Application No. 15628/89

3) 16 October 1989          Registration of Application No. 15629/89

4) 16 October 1989          Registration of Application No. 15630/89

5) 4 December 1989          Registration of Application No. 15857/89

6) 31 October 1990          Registration of Application No. 17384/90

Examination of Admissibility

8 April 1991                Commission's decisions to join the

                            applications; to invite the Government to

                            submit observations on the admissibility

                            and merits of the applications insofar as

                            they concern certain complaints in

                            Applications Nos. 15252/89, 15628/89 and

                            17384/90; and to declare inadmissible the

                            remainder of the applications;

19 July 1991                Government's observations

18 September 1991           Applicant's observations in reply

11 May 1992                 Commission's decision to declare the

                            remainder of Applications Nos. 15252/89,

                            15628/89 and 17384/90 admissible

Examination of the merits

10 July 1992                Government's observations on the merits

17 October 1992)            Commission's consideration of the state of

30 March 1993  )            proceedings

19 April 1993               Applicant's submissions

30 April 1993               Government's submissions

13 May 1993                 Commission's deliberations on the merits

                            and final vote

14 May 1993                 Adoption of the Report

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant

Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 401132 • Paragraphs parsed: 45279850 • Citations processed 3468846